Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

It is worth not giving a fuck about, however. If you think it decreases sensation regardless of the outcome of the scientific study in the OP, sure, keep it, whatever. If you want to have it done to yourself or your kid, it will have zero impact on their life, ever, so snip it off, whatever.

And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.

Full circle!

So there you have it - you don't care, that other people do - apparently - you don't care about. Me me me me me. Anyone who disagrees is clearly retarded!

Maybe, just maybe, its because no one should give a fuck about a little vestigal flap of skin that no one will ever notice anyway?

You already said that line dipshit, and someone already called you on it.

The foreskin is not vestigial.

What is it used for?

I do imagine it's purpose was to protect the glans of the penis from incidental environmental damage, sunburn that sort of thing. As it stands it is a handy masturbation aid at the minimum.

But its already erect anyway?
Whatever.
I say its vestigal because it was useful once and is not anymore, because there are millions of useful devices that are used by nearly all males in the world for protecting their wang. These devices are called pants. In case these fail many wear backup devices called underpants.
Therefore DarkPrimus, you are the dipshit.

People who don't want circumcision oppose in on a moral basis and, if allowed, would enact legislation preventing it for the sake of a bunch of tiny babies who wont remember it anyway.
I want to circumcise any sons I have, but I don't have any problem if you don't, because I shouldn't have control over your life.

Do you think that it's right that people have to tell the hospital "No, don't circumcise my child"?

But its already erect anyway?
Whatever.
I say its vestigal because it was useful once and is not anymore, because there are millions of useful devices that are used by nearly all males in the world for protecting their wang. These devices are called pants. In case these fail many wear backup devices called underpants.
Therefore DarkPrimus, you are the dipshit.

And yet funnily enough regardless of it's vestigial nature or not (something clearly not well defined in the literature) you have yet to show why the better option is clearly to remove choice from people.

It is worth not giving a fuck about, however. If you think it decreases sensation regardless of the outcome of the scientific study in the OP, sure, keep it, whatever. If you want to have it done to yourself or your kid, it will have zero impact on their life, ever, so snip it off, whatever.

And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.

Full circle!

So there you have it - you don't care, that other people do - apparently - you don't care about. Me me me me me. Anyone who disagrees is clearly retarded!

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

:roll:

A dude who tries to regrow his fucking foreskin has some mental issues.

why are you so passionate about this, again? aside from "IF WE DON'T SOLVE THE MINOR PHILISOPHICAL ISSUES HOW CAN WE SOLVE THE BIG ONES" which is also stupid as hell, and not just because I disagree with it.

It is worth not giving a fuck about, however. If you think it decreases sensation regardless of the outcome of the scientific study in the OP, sure, keep it, whatever. If you want to have it done to yourself or your kid, it will have zero impact on their life, ever, so snip it off, whatever.

And yet men go to extraordinary and painful lengths later in life to recover their foreskins.

Which is completely, profoundly, inutterably retarded.

Full circle!

So there you have it - you don't care, that other people do - apparently - you don't care about. Me me me me me. Anyone who disagrees is clearly retarded!

How many people care so much about a fucking foreskin that they put in so much time and effort to recover it anyway? And how many of these people are masochists? No one is willing to answer this because it throws a wrench into their idea that foreskins are divine tools and the most useful part of the body, and therefore you would want to undergo 1-5 years of pain to recover one.

People who don't want circumcision oppose in on a moral basis and, if allowed, would enact legislation preventing it for the sake of a bunch of tiny babies who wont remember it anyway.
I want to circumcise any sons I have, but I don't have any problem if you don't, because I shouldn't have control over your life.

Do you think that it's right that people have to tell the hospital "No, don't circumcise my child"?

Well the problem with circumcision is an unnecessary operation is being performed on someone without their consent. Granted its a minor operation but dosen't that still strike you as being a little wrong?

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Does that cause anyone trouble?

I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

For me? Not even a little bit.

And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

How many people care so much about a fucking foreskin that they put in so much time and effort to recover it anyway? And how many of these people are masochists? No one is willing to answer this because it throws a wrench into their idea that foreskins are divine tools and the most useful part of the body, and therefore you would want to undergo 1-5 years of pain to recover one.

Why don't you go and post the statistic on how many are masochists, coz you know I'm not the one making the positive claim about that one. The fact is people do, and you've yet to show me why we should ignore their desires?

Why is it so important to you that we allow people to arbitrarily impose this little bit of unnecessary coercion on people, for a completely optional procedure that can in fact be performed any time in a man's life, but which cannot be easily reversed and does in fact cause emotional and/or psychological distress to people that could otherwise be completely avoided?

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Does that cause anyone trouble?

I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

For me? Not even a little bit.

And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Does that cause anyone trouble?

I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

For me? Not even a little bit.

And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

It's the part "under the mushroom", so to speak. I don't recall the scientific term for it and I don't want to look at a bunch of wangs looking up the term on Wikipedia.

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Its a shame that underwear is made of barbed wire and thatch that will turn the head of your penis into a bleeding mass without a foreskin.
Oh, wait, underwear is soft.

Could you hi-light the bit where I said that happens?

Thanks.

Yes, it's soft, but that skin is a lot softer. It is irritating to some, others don't notice it. If you rub your wang against cloth like that, it will eventually dry out and get irritated. Which is what your doing, very, very slowly with underwear. This isn't really important, it's just another reason. Really, the important ones are:

It's unnecessary surgery.
It can't really be reversed, and it's being performed without the consent of the patient.

The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."

Edit: also agree that it shouldn't be the default, but something that is done with parental consent.

I'm circumcised, but my kid won't be. I empathize with my my parents probably chose this (I don't want to know exactly, that'd be the worst. conversation. ever.) but I don't think it's all that important for my spawn to undergo this procedure.

Also, if you insecure enough about yourself to the point where you stretch the skin of your penis to repair damage done to you by your evil parents....you've got bigger problems than a less sensitive meatstick.

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Does that cause anyone trouble?

I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

For me? Not even a little bit.

And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."

Edit: also agree that it shouldn't be the default, but something that is done with parental consent.

If it wasn't the default, I would wager good money that the number of children who are circumcised when they are infants would drop dramatically.

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Does that cause anyone trouble?

I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

For me? Not even a little bit.

And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

So, at worst, and assuming I have these imaginary calluses on my dick, I last longer with a female.

The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.

I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".

Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.

And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."

Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Does that cause anyone trouble?

I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

For me? Not even a little bit.

And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

the head of my dick isn't covered in scar tissue, and that's what the foreskin is supposed to be covering, right?

Could a foreskin really have helped you there? That sounds kind of serious.

Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?

Does that cause anyone trouble?

I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?

For me? Not even a little bit.

And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.

So, at worst, and assuming I have these imaginary calluses on my dick, I last longer with a female.